-There is a total of 55 000 metric tons of nuclear waste as a result of 50 years of nuclear power in the US. (source)
-According to this source, the US put 220 MILLION tons of general waste&refuse into landfills
-Mining in the US produces between 1 and 2 BILLION tons of waste.

Hence, I find nuclear waste a bit of a non-issue. Transport and handling poses risks, but storage, if done well in some deep mine-shaft where the groundwater doesn't reach it, not. In fact, the average copper or gold mine has wastes that pose more risks than nuclear waste.

But nuclear isn't a panacea: lots of concrete used in construction means it's responsible for a lot of greenhouse gasses nonetheless, and affordable uranium will run out during our lifetimes, untill they manage to make the uranium from seawater proces more energy and cost efficient (then it's limitless). And Thorium reactors...there are none operational AFAIK. But it would be nice nonetheless, as India for example has thorium washing ashore on their beaches, literally.

Either way, we'll have to go nuclear because it's better than coal by far (and produces far less radioactivity in the atmosphere, ironically), and more scalable than renewables. (I'm assuming you guys are peak-oil aware regarding oil and natural gas)

America has a good millennium of Thorium for fuel, so Uranium running out is a complete non-issue: getting thorium reactors online in a timely manner is exactly the kind of bureaucratic mess that means we should start sooner rather than later. Like, tomorrow sooner._________________There is a luxury to self-reproach.

America has a good millennium of Thorium for fuel, so Uranium running out is a complete non-issue: getting thorium reactors online in a timely manner is exactly the kind of bureaucratic mess that means we should start sooner rather than later. Like, tomorrow sooner.

Why of course!!

That sounds like a great idea!!

Oh wait.. that process creates Protactinium, which on top of being just as toxic and radioactive as plutonium, it's nearly useless.

America has a good millennium of Thorium for fuel, so Uranium running out is a complete non-issue: getting thorium reactors online in a timely manner is exactly the kind of bureaucratic mess that means we should start sooner rather than later. Like, tomorrow sooner.

Why of course!!

That sounds like a great idea!!

Oh wait.. that process creates Protactinium, which on top of being just as toxic and radioactive as plutonium, it's nearly useless.

Bravo!!

Doesnt that substance decay at a rate a factor of 10 or so quicker than plutonium though?_________________

America has a good millennium of Thorium for fuel, so Uranium running out is a complete non-issue: getting thorium reactors online in a timely manner is exactly the kind of bureaucratic mess that means we should start sooner rather than later. Like, tomorrow sooner.

Why of course!!

That sounds like a great idea!!

Oh wait.. that process creates Protactinium, which on top of being just as toxic and radioactive as plutonium, it's nearly useless.

Bravo!!

Doesnt that substance decay at a rate a factor of 10 or so quicker than plutonium though?

Wiki has interesting stuff. Thorium as a fuel seems to be much closer to reality than I thought.

Quote:

Why of course!!

That sounds like a great idea!!

Oh wait.. that process creates Protactinium, which on top of being just as toxic and radioactive as plutonium, it's nearly useless.

Bravo!!

"thorium produces one to two orders of magnitude less long-lived transuranics than uranium fuel cycles, though the long-lived actinide protactinium-231 is produced, and the amount of fission products is similar.."

However, as I said earlier, nuclear waste is mostly a non-issue. It's not like unused uranium isn't dangerous or toxic. You take a dangerous element out of the earth, you use it, you put it back in. Some single mines could store all the waste the US has.

Wiki has interesting stuff. Thorium as a fuel seems to be much closer to reality than I thought.

Quote:

Why of course!!

That sounds like a great idea!!

Oh wait.. that process creates Protactinium, which on top of being just as toxic and radioactive as plutonium, it's nearly useless.

Bravo!!

"thorium produces one to two orders of magnitude less long-lived transuranics than uranium fuel cycles, though the long-lived actinide protactinium-231 is produced, and the amount of fission products is similar.."

However, as I said earlier, nuclear waste is mostly a non-issue. It's not like unused uranium isn't dangerous or toxic. You take a dangerous element out of the earth, you use it, you put it back in. Some single mines could store all the waste the US has.

First of all, the waste is put back in a much more concentrated form, which can be much more deadlier than naturally spread out.

It needs to be guarded indefinitely.

This takes huge amounts of maintenance and security.

There have already been leaks that also need security and maintenance for quite a while.

This costs Tax Payers quite a bit of money.

As for tinker,

Your Seattle sources are from 1998, use 2nd hand knowledge, and plenty of hand waving.

I don't want to start on Wired, or really any non-peer reviewed article.

Also, it's a little too late to worry about proliferation, but that's not the issue I have.

My issue is that Protactinium 231, (don't get your isotopes mixed up) is literally useless for something like oh, I dunno, eventual human travel in space, compared to plutonium, which has other uses than for nuclear weapons. Protactinium 233 decays quite fast, and the thorium cycle is just generally more dangerous/complex in terms of eV radiated.

And for the "strawman", you sure do seem to be quite the advocate for nuclear power.

-There is a total of 55 000 metric tons of nuclear waste as a result of 50 years of nuclear power in the US. (source)
-According to this source, the US put 220 MILLION tons of general waste&refuse into landfills
-Mining in the US produces between 1 and 2 BILLION tons of waste.

Hence, I find nuclear waste a bit of a non-issue. Transport and handling poses risks, but storage, if done well in some deep mine-shaft where the groundwater doesn't reach it, not. In fact, the average copper or gold mine has wastes that pose more risks than nuclear waste.

But nuclear isn't a panacea: lots of concrete used in construction means it's responsible for a lot of greenhouse gasses nonetheless, and affordable uranium will run out during our lifetimes, untill they manage to make the uranium from seawater proces more energy and cost efficient (then it's limitless). And Thorium reactors...there are none operational AFAIK. But it would be nice nonetheless, as India for example has thorium washing ashore on their beaches, literally.

Either way, we'll have to go nuclear because it's better than coal by far (and produces far less radioactivity in the atmosphere, ironically), and more scalable than renewables. (I'm assuming you guys are peak-oil aware regarding oil and natural gas)

So you're saying investing more money in getting power from landfills a resource that gets "220 MILLION tons of general waste&refuse" is less preferable than investing in nuclear.